<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content=text/css http-equiv=Content-Style-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>BODY {
BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; MARGIN: 5px
}
HR {
COLOR: #000000
}
BODY {
FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
TABLE {
FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
SPAN.rvts1 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold
}
SPAN.rvts2 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000080; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold
}
SPAN.rvts3 {
FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #800000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
A.rvts4 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #008000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts4 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #008000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A.rvts5 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #008000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts5 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #008000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A.rvts6 {
COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts6 {
COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts7 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'segoe ui'; FONT-SIZE: 8pt
}
SPAN.rvts8 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'tahoma'
}
SPAN.rvts9 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'arial black'; COLOR: #000080
}
SPAN.rvts10 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'arial'; COLOR: #000080
}
SPAN.rvts11 {
FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: 'arial black'; COLOR: #000080
}
SPAN.rvts12 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'tahoma'; FONT-WEIGHT: bold
}
A.rvts13 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'tahoma'; COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts13 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'tahoma'; COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts14 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'calibri'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
SPAN.rvts15 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
SPAN.rvts16 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'arial'; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
SPAN.rvts17 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'arial'; COLOR: #0000ff
}
SPAN.rvts18 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'calibri'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
A.rvts19 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'calibri'; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts19 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'calibri'; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts20 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'arial'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
SPAN.rvts21 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'arial'
}
SPAN.rvts22 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'segoe ui'
}
A.rvts23 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'segoe ui'; COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.rvts23 {
FONT-FAMILY: 'segoe ui'; COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
.rvps1 {
TEXT-ALIGN: center
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010>I'm not opposed to
polling members on this issue. I can understand that many of
Phil's members who are in the domain name business may see business
opportunities from the introduction of new gTLDs. They and others who
expressed concern do not own a well known brand or have widespread
trademark infringement problems. Those who object have different business
interests and protecting corporate brands and consumers in the
new gTLD spaces is not on their list of priorities. I respect
that.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010>However, ICANN designated
trademark protection as one of the overarching issues surrounding the rollout
and pledged that these issues would be adequately addressed in the DAG.
I'm not aware of any major brand owners, including the IPC members participating
on the IRT, who are happy with the diluted trademark protections currently
contained in DAG 4. I would hope even members without trademark concerns,
should respect the interests of BC members who have such concerns and allow them
to express those. Our BC GNSO councilors have consistently advocated for
these protections on our behalf. The BC already submitted consistent
comments in the past, including on DAG 3. Ron tried to keep much of the DAG
4 comments identical to the language to the DAG 3 draft. I'm
sure Ron is open to receiving additional constructive edits on tone and
substance (e.g., Mike R's helpful suggestion to delete reference to the GPML
since that appears to be dead in the water).</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010>I'm hopeful that we can
find a consructive way to move forward given the importance of this issue to so
many BC members. We've heard from those raising concerns, but
we've also heard from AT&T, News Corp, Mike Rodenbaugh, NetChoice,
Verizon and RNA Partners weighing in supporting the comments.
I would urge others to weigh in on this as well.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922482417-18072010><BR>Sarah</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial><BR><BR><FONT color=#000080>Sarah B.
Deutsch <BR>Vice President & Associate General Counsel <BR>Verizon
Communications <BR>Phone: 703-351-3044 <BR>Fax: 703-351-3670
</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Phil Corwin<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:48 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'michaelc@traveler.com';
'mike@haven2.com'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'jb7454@att.com'; 'randruff@rnapartners.com';
'ffelman@markmonitor.com'; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Re[2]:
[bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Given
the diversity of opinion within the BC, as well as the fact that other members
appear to have broader concerns than those I raised, I would again suggest that
a poll should be taken of BC members to take the Constituency's temperature and
determine if there is any consensus for the proposed position statement.
<BR>Philip S. Corwin <BR>Partner, Butera & Andrews <BR>1301 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW <BR>Suite 500 <BR>Washington, DC 20004 <BR>2026635347/Office
<BR>2022556172/Cell <BR><BR>"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
</FONT><BR> <BR>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><B>From</B>: Michael
Castello [mailto:michaelc@traveler.com] <BR><B>Sent</B>: Saturday, July 17, 2010
07:04 PM<BR><B>To</B>: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> <BR><B>Cc</B>: Phil
Corwin; BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) <jb7454@att.com>; Ron Andruff
<randruff@rnapartners.com>; frederick felman
<ffelman@markmonitor.com>; bc-GNSO@icann.org <bc-GNSO@icann.org>
<BR><B>Subject</B>: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
<BR></FONT> <BR></DIV>
<P><BR></P>
<P>I agree with both Phil and Mikey. There was certainly a lot of freedom early
on with the internet and closing ranks on the concerns of trademark holders and
new entities were, over time, clearly needed. The name space was allowed to
flourish because it was so available to everyone. We need to make sure that
these regulations, while needed, do not become too cumbersome to new
participants. Everyone needs to be invited to the party. </P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>Michael Castello</P>
<P>CEO/President</P>
<P>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</P>
<P><A class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com">http://www.ccin.com</A></P>
<P><A class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@ccin.com">michael@ccin.com</A></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>--</P>
<P>Saturday, July 17, 2010, 5:39:34 AM, you wrote:</P>
<P><BR></P>
<DIV><A name=divRpF20543></A>
<TABLE style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=1>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000ff" width=2><BR></TD>
<TD width=1683>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>i am in Phil's camp on this. several years ago
i started referring to myself as "a member of the business wing of the
Business Constituency" just to make it clear that i'm not keen on our
strident views with regard to rights protections and cyber-security.
</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>of course cyber-crime is important, but folks like
Bruce Schneier make an extremely compelling case that there needs to be a
culture of security in which all participants are active and aware rather
than creating a culture of passive consumers being "protected" by
ever-increasingly intrusive "authorities" like governments and ICANN.
</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>of course trademark violations are unacceptable --
but to make this our signature issue, to take our position beyond even
those of the IPC, and leaving *small* business owners defenseless in the
face of large corporate brand-owners, leaves me continuing to feel
disenfranchised (much the way i feel disenfranchised by the extreme
politics in my country -- where the heck do moderates hang
out??). </SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>i would love to see the BC develop a positive message
(based on positive positions) that truly reflect the needs of businesses
large and small rather than recycling these views from our reactionary
past. </SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>i would also love to get out of the continuing role
of being an apologist for our somewhat quirky positions. haarrrumph!
:-)</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>so, just to be on record, i do not support these
comments on DAGv4.</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>sorry about the rant. thanks for taking the
time to craft these notes Phil,</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>mikey</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts7>On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Phil Corwin
wrote:</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Ron (and other BC members who contacted me to ask
that I provide alternative URS language):</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>I appreciate the request, as I appreciate the hard
work put in by Ron and Sarah on the draft.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>That said, a few word changes will not suffice to
alter ICA's dissent, as we have an entirely different perspective. We
represent individuals and companies with substantial investments in domain
portfolios. They view domains in the same way that most of you (and we)
view trademarks -- as an intangible asset with substantial value. When a
trademark rights protection is proposed it might be useful to ask
whether you would be willing to have one of your trademarks
suspended, or forfeited, on the basis of what is on the table. If not,
then don't expect registrants to embrace it. In no way do we
condone trademark infringement, but proposed responses to it need to
assure basic due process.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>If a majority wills it then the BC is within its
rights to proffer a reworking of the same positions it has
articulated on prior occasions, and it should expect essentially the
same results -- especially after BC members participated in an
STI process that reworked the IRTrecommendations, and the
STI's work was embraced by the GNSO and approved by the Board.
If ICANN staff have significantly altered the STI's consensus
recommendations then that certainly should be raised, but otherwise the
rights protections for new gTLDs have been pretty much baked into the
DAG. Does anyone really think they will be reopened in any significant
way?</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>As regards the specifics of the URS provision, we
cannot agree that the URS should have the same substantive standard as the
UDRP. The URS was proposed by the IRT as reserved for "obvious",
"no brainer" rights disputes, and was originally proposed with a higher
evidentiary standard to distinguish URS cases from UDRPs. We
don't think the BC's credibility on trademark matters is
enhanced when it consistently articulates a harder line than that of
the IPC, which conceived of and oversaw the IRT. As for urging that the
URS lead to a domain transfer and not just a suspension -- again, this
goes beyond the IRT recommendation and would likewise blur the
distinction between the URS and UDRP.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Finally, we find the discussion of the "impact" test
for a finding of RDNH in the URS to be confusing -- but we do believe
that if a complainant advances deliberate falsehoods with the intent of
having a favorable impact on its complaint then it is clearly guilty
of attempting to abuse the available system.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Beyond the URS, our only other comment on the rights
protection language is to note our strong questioning of a TM
Clearinghouse regime in which an "identical match" is defined as
"typographical variations". Identical means identical, not variations.
Variations to what degree? Having a trademark in one word doesn't provide
a right to fire warning shots at tens of thousands of possible
variants of that word, multiple degrees of separation away from it.
If you're going to propose that variations be encompassed then it really
is incumbent to articulate some defining limits on that notion - "we know
it when we see it" is really not adequate assurance for registrants. And,
of course, these issues become even more problematic for dictionary words
that are trademarked for various purposes. Please let's
remember that in most instances infringement can't just be determined
by the name of a domain but requires a look at how it is being
used.</SP></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Finally, to note an area of agreement -- we
share the concern that ICANN devotes inadequate resources to
compliance, and indeed in Brussels we suggested publicly that it earmark a
meaningful portion of revenues from new gTLD applications to
that end.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Summing up, we would have to oppose the URS regime
that the majority of the BC seems to favor as providing inadequate
assurance of due process to registrants, and we think the overall position
on rights protection is backwards looking given that the STI train
has left the station. Again, this does not mean we are unsympathetic to
the concerns of rights holders. Throughout the past 18 months we have
advocated comprehensive UDRP reform that would address the concerns
of all parties across the entire gTLD space, and we continue to
believe that a good faith collaboration could produce positive changes
that could be put in place in tandem with the opening of new
gTLDs.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Regards to all,</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8>Philip</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts8> </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>Philip S. Corwin </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>Partner </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>Butera & Andrews </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>Suite 500 </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>Washington, DC 20004</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>202-347-6875 (office) </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>202-347-6876 (fax</SPAN><SPAN
class=rvts10>)</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts9>202-255-6172 (cell)</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts11>"Luck is the residue of design."</SPAN><SPAN
class=rvts9> -- Branch Rickey</SPAN></P>
<HR SIZE=2 noShade>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>From:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> </SPAN><A
class=rvts13
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</A><SPAN
class=rvts8> [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF
(ATTSI) [jb7454@att.com]</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Sent:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> Friday, July 16,
2010 3:36 PM</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>To:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> Ron Andruff;
frederick felman; </SPAN><A class=rvts13
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</A></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Subject:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> RE: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts14>Thanks Ron and Sarah. AT&T supports filing
comments and I like how you’ve updated them. While I was not
involved in the original BC comments, I would note that you could add a
reference to the recommendation in the Economic Study that it may be wise
for ICANC to continue its practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete,
limited rounds. </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts14>Jeff Brueggeman</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts14>AT&T Public Policy</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts14>(202) 457-2064</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>From:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> </SPAN><A
class=rvts13
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</A><SPAN
class=rvts8> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] </SPAN><SPAN
class=rvts12>On Behalf Of </SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8>Ron
Andruff</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Sent:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> Friday, July 16,
2010 12:34 PM</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>To:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> 'frederick
felman'; </SPAN><A class=rvts13
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</A></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Subject:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> RE: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts16>Thanks to Mark Monitor and AIM for your notes of
support for the circulated draft.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts16>I encourage other members to give the doc a quick
read. While it is several pages long, please note that it is the
same document we submitted for DAGv3 so what we are asking is for you to
review the redlines and give your comments/amendments. To that end,
Phil Corwin, can you send your suggested URS text asap?</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts16>Thanks again everyone for taking a moment to review
the DAGv4 draft comments.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts16>RA</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts17>Ronald N. Andruff</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts17>President</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts17>RNA Partners, Inc.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts17>220 Fifth Avenue</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts17>New York, New York 10001</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts17>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<HR SIZE=2 noShade>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>From:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> frederick felman
[mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com] </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Sent:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> Friday, July 16,
2010 12:21 PM</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>To:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> Ron
Andruff; </SPAN><A class=rvts13
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</A></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Subject:</SPAN><SPAN class=rvts8> Re: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts12>Importance:</SPAN><SPAN
class=rvts8> High</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts18>MarkMonitor support the BC comments to
DAGv4.</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts18>On 7/15/10 7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff" <</SPAN><A
class=rvts19
href="https://exchange.sierracorporation.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx">randruff@rnapartners.com</A><SPAN
class=rvts18>> wrote:</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20>Dear Members,</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20>Further to my reminder earlier this week regarding
the need for a BC public comment on DAGv4, Sarah Deutsch and I have
developed a draft for member review and comment. Effectively, we
have taken the BC’s DAGv3 comments and added/amended based on (1) staff
having largely ignored our comments in DAGv2 and v3; and (2) utilized
subsequent information that has come available in the interim (e.g., the
latest economic study). FYI, Sarah drafted the RPM material and I took
responsibility for the other elements.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20>We ask that members review and comment on the
document at your earliest convenience, so that we can meet the submission
deadline of Wednesday, July 21st. Sorry for the late posting, but
unfortunately with summer holidays and all, a few things are slipping
between the cracks...</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20>Thanks in advance for your soonest input.
</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20>Kind regards,</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20>RA</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts20></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts21>Ronald N. Andruff</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts21>President</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts21>RNA Partners, Inc.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts21>220 Fifth Avenue</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts21>New York, New York 10001</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts21>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts15></SPAN> </P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><BR></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts22>- - - - - - - - -</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts22>phone 651-647-6109 </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts22>fax 866-280-2356 </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts22>web </SPAN><A class=rvts23
href="http://www.haven2.com">http://www.haven2.com</A></P>
<P><SPAN class=rvts22>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like
Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)</SPAN></P></SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></HTML>